"Kali" wrote in message
In , Rhonda Lea Kirk
said:
"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message
miguel wrote in
:
snipped for clarity
If you stop, and if you can persuade your friends, who are,
frighteningly, even less rational than you, to stop, I'll be happy
to pull the plug on this as well. The nerd gimp retard fagbois
hold the keys to the kingdom, Kimberly K. Barnard, University of
Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of Psychology.
Wow. Extortion attempt.
No.
It's negotiation: Everyone stops.
****ing wrong, Rhonda. We discussed this the other day. I stand
by what I said, that I don't think it's right to Google stack,
and I certainly don't indend to call *anyone* a "dog****er". I
thought I made that clear.
I thought you did too.
Then you posted this:
Message-ID:
The discussion was double standards and miguel's kooky threats.
I made an example comparison (libel and assault). In my
comparison, I used his last name and the word "dog****er".
That's not what I read.
And if you follow the context in date and time order, he asked for
clarification before he retaliated. Your response included calling him a
clown.
Then
your sweetheart came back and spammed my full name and office
address several times. He upped the anti. He was probably so
foamy he thought I was chiming in with the others, so instead of
seeking clarification, he shot his load, revealing his true
character: that of a coward no better than Brad Jesness. I
explained this in fewer words in an earlier post, and his
response was to repeat his cowardly behavior. No remorse, if in
fact he did jump the gun.
I have read through that part of the thread more than a few times, and
I'm not getting from there to here. See above.
It wasn't negotiation, it was retaliation. Call a spade a spade.
He retaliated, and then he offered a mutual cease-fire. It was
characterized as "extortion." I disagree that it is extortion.
What I keep hearing over and over again is that he's supposed to sit
back and let auk have its fun at his expense. If you set the standard,
you have to live with it. You said he upped the ante, but all he did was
level the field. A web page for a web page, identifying information for
identifying information.
"Fair," to me, does not mean "advantage to one side."
Your "ethics" are highly conditional, aren't they?
You called him a dog****er.
You minimized the gravity and impact of calling him a dog****er even
though I objected to it strongly many posts ago.
How does that make /my/ ethics conditional? I've been consistent about
what I think all along. And the one thing I have not done to you is
threaten loss of friendship to influence your behavior, but you did that
to me way back he
On other less talked about matters: It is unfortunate that a
so-called friend of yours and Rhonda's would show such blithe
disregard for your friendship by attacking your friends. I have higher
standards for friendship.
and
In reality, this kind of thing does have an impact on perceived
friendships.
Mike has never asked me to choose between you, and he hasn't punished me
for disagreeing with him when I thought he was wrong. Nor has he used me
as a bat against you.
Everyone is entitled to their opinon, Kali. In this case, yours and mine
do not agree.
snipped
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay